Sylvia_Bandersnatch:alowishus: roncofooddehydrator: So you ask every business person who you do business with where they spend your money to make sure it conforms with your views?

If the CEO of Chick-fil-a announced that the restaurant's official policy was that black people should no be allowed to vote, would you still have such a nonchalant view?

It's not just the CEO's personal opinion, he's made it the official policy of the company.

It's not even that it's their policy. It's that they actively prosecute it materially, by donating real money to real groups that are really working against gay rights in this country, for example by really lobbying real congresscritters about real legislation that affects real gay citizens. I don't give a rat's ass what they believe. It's what they DO that irks me.

I actually agree with something you've posted. Granted, you weren't attacking another Farker this time, but I just....I agree with every word in your post...

roncofooddehydrator:jso2897: You're right, to a point. But I don't think I'd buy a computer that had a sticker on it that said "We abuse our workers, and we're damn proud of it!" It's inpossible to avoid complicity with all evil in a complicated world - but I don't have to give my money to people who treat their assholishness as a prideful selling point. It is, I would remind you, my money - and I can spend it where I want.

I have no problem with you spending your money as you see fit. I just wish people admitted they were involved in this boycott because it made them feel better, not because they're acting under some sort of moral imperative.

What? Why the hell do you think ANYBODY does ANYTHING? It's the things that make us "feel better" that differentiate us as human beings. Some people "feel better" when they kick puppies. Others "feel better" when they stand up for something they think matters. Do you hold the two to be equivalent?

Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

That's right, and it'd be the same if Charles Manson owned Chick-Fil-A (fark I'm tired of typing that with all the hyphens) and wasn't jailed. Just because the owner of a chicken joint is a despicable excuse for a sack of meat is no reason to question giving him money!

FloydA:Pocket Ninja: I do like Chik fil A sandwiches, but those motherless whoremongerers always ignore me and put a goddamn pickle on the sandwich. I say, very clearly, "I do not want a pickle." And then they hand me the little insulated bag with the sandwich inside it and I go to sit down and pull apart the bread and THERE'S A FARKING PICKLE. JESUS CHRIST. And don't give me any bullcrap about "just take the pickle off." Once pickle juice taints something you can never get it out, never. It's always going to taste like farking pickle. So I'm sort of glad that I found out they're a hate group, actually, because now I get to feel good about not subjecting myself to that sort of aggravation anymore.

rohar:chewielouie: Sorry, but freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to eat tasty chicken sandwiches and waffle fries trump exaggerated outrage expressed by those who chose a lifestyle that not everyone is willing to accept or embrace as natural, and who also oppose it on moral and religious grounds.

Yes, there is intolerance and bigotry, but it's coming from the left.

shotglasss: Who gives a fark. I'm still going to Chick Fil A every time I want a chicken sammich. It's the best one out there. Although Panera's got a great turkey sammich that works for me too.

Oh you poor bastards in the south, no access to tasty fast food. You do what you will, but it doesn't compare to Zip's.

/oh, and for you smug Seattlites, Dick's isn't Zips.//Zip's has an awesome chicken sandwich, and the fries are to die for///and deep fried mushrooms, without the whole child abuse funding

Missouri isn't really the south...that starts in Arkansas. But it appears you are way north of me, so I understand. No biggie.

OTOH, we do have some really good local fast foods. Got a place called Lion's Choice, very good roast beef and turkey sammiches and fast fast fast if you don't go at lunchtime...they're always packed then.

rohar:Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

That's right, and it'd be the same if Charles Manson owned Chick-Fil-A (fark I'm tired of typing that with all the hyphens) and wasn't jailed. Just because the owner of a chicken joint is a despicable excuse for a sack of meat is no reason to question giving him money!

That's a really convincing argument, because murder is exactly like political speech!

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

Yes, "part of". Or do you think CFA doesn't turn a profit, or doesn't write-off those political contributions? They aren't spending every cent I would be paying for their crap in the processing of their junk food. They're selling something worth mere pennies, which costs them a few more pennies to supply (logistically, on a per-unit basis), for quite a few more pennies than they used getting it to the customer. That's how business works. Part of the proceeds from every sale go to hate groups and actively working toward the oppression of a segment of the populace.

So nothing I said was incorrect. There are other options. There is no reason at all to give bigots money while other (better) options exist.

rohar:Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

That's right, and it'd be the same if Charles Manson owned Chick-Fil-A (fark I'm tired of typing that with all the hyphens) and wasn't jailed. Just because the owner of a chicken joint is a despicable excuse for a sack of meat is no reason to question giving him money!

Of course not - and I'm sure all these guys would be up for going on down to Nambla's for some of those sweet baby back ribs they got. A man's gotta eat.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:rohar: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

That's right, and it'd be the same if Charles Manson owned Chick-Fil-A (fark I'm tired of typing that with all the hyphens) and wasn't jailed. Just because the owner of a chicken joint is a despicable excuse for a sack of meat is no reason to question giving him money!

That's a really convincing argument, because murder is exactly like political speech!

Kuroshin:MikeyistheDevil: rohar: chewielouie: Sorry, but freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to eat tasty chicken sandwiches and waffle fries trump exaggerated outrage expressed by those who chose a lifestyle that not everyone is willing to accept or embrace as natural, and who also oppose it on moral and religious grounds.

Yes, there is intolerance and bigotry, but it's coming from the left.

shotglasss: Who gives a fark. I'm still going to Chick Fil A every time I want a chicken sammich. It's the best one out there. Although Panera's got a great turkey sammich that works for me too.

Oh you poor bastards in the south, no access to tasty fast food. You do what you will, but it doesn't compare to Zip's.

/oh, and for you smug Seattlites, Dick's isn't Zips.//Zip's has an awesome chicken sandwich, and the fries are to die for///and deep fried mushrooms, without the whole child abuse funding

You must not have ever been to the South.

/Had Chick-Fil-A today, will probably have some again next week//u mad?

Nah. It's your right to be a bigot and support businesses that act as a front for hate groups. I just ain't sharing any of my beer with you, or letting you ride any of my awesome motorcycles.

...in-between bouts of shagging my hot Korean wife. You can be the sad little hate-monger you are.

Sad, sad little hate-monger.

I may be about to commit a sin, but I've always thought Ducati's were fugly. Especially for the price. What little I know (and it's very little) says they are premier sports bikes, high performance.

But they're fugly little farks.

Oh, and, right to do what you want with your money, and not support someone who pays terrorists out of the company funds, it's not freedom of speech infringement because no one is censoring him, they are refusing to patronize his establishment. And it's not a freedom of speech issue anyway because...he's not speaking. He's buying thugs to bully/intimidate/hurt people. That's the difference. I also don't patronize PETA because they're at best quasi terroristic insane.

You know, what I find shocking about this thread is not the number of people who are putting others down for making what they believe to be moral choices with their own money - that's typical of Farkers, who tend to freak completely out at anything they suspect might be any form of "political correctness"But i had no idea that this many Farkers had such horrible taste in food.I've had the misfortune of tasting Cick-Fil-A's "food" on a couple of unavoidable occasions. It's hog vomit. Greasy, slimy, salty, foul hillbilly chow. Why would anyone deliberately subject themselves to swallowing garbage, let alone like it? Have they no taste buds?

Kuroshin:Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

Yes, "part of". Or do you think CFA doesn't turn a profit, or doesn't write-off those political contributions? They aren't spending every cent I would be paying for their crap in the processing of their junk food. They're selling something worth mere pennies, which costs them a few more pennies to supply (logistically, on a per-unit basis), for quite a few more pennies than they used getting it to the customer. That's how business works. Part of the proceeds from every sale go to hate groups and actively working toward the oppression of a segment of the populace.

So nothing I said was incorrect. There are other options. There is no reason at all to give bigots money while other (better) options exist.

I was just saying that it ceases to be "your money" when you transfer it to someone else.

Anyway, if you don't feel that you are getting $X of value for the $X you are spending at ChickFilA then don't spend it. If someone else perceives that value and makes that exchange, then CFA is supporting that person's political views by supplying him or her with food to (at least) the same extent that he or she is supporting CFA's views by paying money to the company.

WTF is an "icedream cone"? I don't want to get reamed with a cone whether it is iced or not! I those those rednecks were anti-gay!

Same reason why Dairy Queen and McDonalds have "cones" and not "ice cream cones"..... their stuff is legally "ice milk", not "ice cream". Although according to DQ's website, they can now be called "lite ice cream", but, I don't think they've jumped on that.

Point 1: can Facebook shut down CFA's Facebook presence if they determine that their EULA was violated by making fraudulent accounts?

Point 2: can they be screwed by the stock company or the person in the pic because it disparages the person in the pic? Most stock agencies have clauses that you can't use identifiable people in a way to negatively affect their reputation.

What I think is just stupid is how people boycott businesses thinking the business who does these kinds of things even gives a damn while that single mom trying to feed her two kids losses her job because some boycott lost business for the company and they couldn't pay her anymore. Really do people even think of these things before they act? Stand on a principle and all. I'm all for dragging them through the mud for being wrong but seriously the only people who suffer from a boycott of a company are the people lower down the chain that actually NEED the job.

jso2897:You know, what I find shocking about this thread is not the number of people who are putting others down for making what they believe to be moral choices with their own money - that's typical of Farkers, who tend to freak completely out at anything they suspect might be any form of "political correctness"But i had no idea that this many Farkers had such horrible taste in food.I've had the misfortune of tasting Cick-Fil-A's "food" on a couple of unavoidable occasions. It's hog vomit. Greasy, slimy, salty, foul hillbilly chow. Why would anyone deliberately subject themselves to swallowing garbage, let alone like it? Have they no taste buds?

pregerstheHobo:I read the entire thread and I'm still curious. How does chikfila think they can win in a PR battle against one of America's most beloved institutions, the Muppets?

Since the late 60's, those furry farkers have taught us all about love, acceptance, and understanding. Even bigots raised on the puppets are stopped in their tracks when reminded of the words of the Sesame Street characters.

Is this corporation seriously so stupid to think that they can win this? The generation that watched the golden age of PBS will always side with their childhood friends.

Hell, I'm an atheistic alcoholic that lost all hope in humanity long ago and I keep a Mr. Rogers quote calendar on my desk.

/still don't understand the logic//I know! We'll make Americans hate the Muppets! Then we'll stilll be able to hate the f***ots and still sell shiat loadds of chickin!///I think I just wrote the plot to the new Muppets movie

They're not. Henson's Muppets are no longer of the body as far as they're concerned. They don't care if every single Muppet fan in the country boycotts them. From their perspective, it's not about the money, it's about being morally superior. Hence, the donations to various groups that aggressively oppose gay rights, or progressive values in general. They're true believers. I'm sure they'll win some new business from bigots, but that won't make much difference to their bottom line. It's far too early to guess what the loss of gay-friendly business might mean for them, but I wouldn't expect much of an impact, at least in the short term. Ten or twenty years down the road, this might hurt them a lot more, for but for foreseeable future I doubt it will.

roncofooddehydrator:jso2897: You're right, to a point. But I don't think I'd buy a computer that had a sticker on it that said "We abuse our workers, and we're damn proud of it!" It's inpossible to avoid complicity with all evil in a complicated world - but I don't have to give my money to people who treat their assholishness as a prideful selling point. It is, I would remind you, my money - and I can spend it where I want.

I have no problem with you spending your money as you see fit. I just wish people admitted they were involved in this boycott because it made them feel better, not because they're acting under some sort of moral imperative.

You don't want to hear jack shiat, but if people were to say it anyway it would make you feel better, wouldn't it?

Did anyone conclusively prove that the sock puppet came from CFA or someone they new and authorized to act on their behalf?

The reason I ask is there's this website called Fark, and sometimes people make throwaway accounts on it just to make rude and offensive posts....

Also, southwest chargrilled chicken salad with the spicy dressing is So Damn Good. You cannot believe how pissed I am that CFA has made me choose between mouth-scorching spicy goodness and personal integrity. I can only hope that they see the light sometime soon. I can't eat the sammiches or planks, though- I can't digest them, for some reason. Might as well throw 'em directly in the turlett and skip the gut-wrenching cramps and exclamations of "how the fark did it get through me without even losing the breading!" and "the flipping pickle is STILL intact, for fark's sake!"

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:rohar: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

That's right, and it'd be the same if Charles Manson owned Chick-Fil-A (fark I'm tired of typing that with all the hyphens) and wasn't jailed. Just because the owner of a chicken joint is a despicable excuse for a sack of meat is no reason to question giving him money!

That's a really convincing argument, because murder is exactly like political speech!

tillerman35:Did anyone conclusively prove that the sock puppet came from CFA or someone they new and authorized to act on their behalf?

No, no one's proved that yet, and it might not even be provable, just like it's not provable that CFA pulled the Muppet toys in retaliation, instead of for a legitimate safety concern -- you can't prove a negative. But both are suspicious, to say the least. Some folks near the top of the thread claiming to know a lot about SEO say it's a common tactic, especially for companies facing controversy, as CFA is right now. But even if is traceable to CFA, it might not be their direct doing, or their idea -- again, very hard to prove. Short of a smoking memo, it's hard to know exactly what the nondisputable facts may be.

As it happens, though, there's been very little chatter in this thread asserting either of those suspicions as more than that. It's been mostly a rehash of the CFA thread from a couple days ago, about gay rights and boycocks and such.

kroonermanblack:I may be about to commit a sin, but I've always thought Ducati's were fugly. Especially for the price. What little I know (and it's very little) says they are premier sports bikes, high performance.

But they're fugly little farks.

Oh, and, right to do what you want with your money, and not support someone who pays terrorists out of the company funds, it's not freedom of speech infringement because no one is censoring him, they are refusing to patronize his establishment. And it's not a freedom of speech issue ...

Hey, I ain't about to hang you by your balls over an aesthetic opinion. I feel the same way about Suzuki and Honda. My preference is for Yamaha and Ducati (but not the newest Monsters and Diavel...oh god no - ugly as all fark). I personally love the look of this vintage Monster, as well as the same-vintage Sport1000. Personal preference. I also REALLY love the look of my '08 R6 - finest-looking bike ever made IMO.

Pocket Ninja:I do like Chik fil A sandwiches, but those motherless whoremongerers always ignore me and put a goddamn pickle on the sandwich. I say, very clearly, "I do not want a pickle." And then they hand me the little insulated bag with the sandwich inside it and I go to sit down and pull apart the bread and THERE'S A FARKING PICKLE. JESUS CHRIST. And don't give me any bullcrap about "just take the pickle off." Once pickle juice taints something you can never get it out, never. It's always going to taste like farking pickle. So I'm sort of glad that I found out they're a hate group, actually, because now I get to feel good about not subjecting myself to that sort of aggravation anymore.

You do know they marinate the chicken in pickle juice before cooking it, right? Oh wait, am I doing this wrong?

Phil Payne:What I think is just stupid is how people boycott businesses thinking the business who does these kinds of things even gives a damn while that single mom trying to feed her two kids losses her job because some boycott lost business for the company and they couldn't pay her anymore. Really do people even think of these things before they act? Stand on a principle and all. I'm all for dragging them through the mud for being wrong but seriously the only people who suffer from a boycott of a company are the people lower down the chain that actually NEED the job.

So in other words consumers should never use the only real Free Market recourse they have?

I hope someday gay couples enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. With that said, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of the mayor of Boston trying to jerk some restaurant chain around over political/religious differences.

Pincy:Phil Payne: What I think is just stupid is how people boycott businesses thinking the business who does these kinds of things even gives a damn while that single mom trying to feed her two kids losses her job because some boycott lost business for the company and they couldn't pay her anymore. Really do people even think of these things before they act? Stand on a principle and all. I'm all for dragging them through the mud for being wrong but seriously the only people who suffer from a boycott of a company are the people lower down the chain that actually NEED the job.

So in other words consumers should never use the only real Free Market recourse they have?

It isn't the only recourse people have in a free market. That is the problem. You can picket a business on public land outside the privately owned property of a business and get the word out. You can hold open forums in the place of business on the subject and the business owner can't retaliate as long as you are following the letter of the law with it. You can do many things that get the point across in a more profound way than just "not showing up" because just not spending your money there is faceless and unnoticable. Hell in Colorado, during the deliberations on the State Amendment 2 vote the entire LGBT community almost held a boycott of businesses across the state for two solid years and accounting every single business the estimated net loss to the state was around $75 million which considering the state brought in over $10 billion in just tourism those two years doesn't really amount to much. It is always far more effective to show your face and take a stand than it is to not show up at all.

It stops being a legitimate political/religious speech when it starts infringing on the rights of others. You can argue about where that line falls -- and that argument is valid political speech, and that argument might change the law -- but it is the duty of government officials to uphold the rights of all citizens.

rohar:Monkeyfark Ridiculous: rohar: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Kuroshin:So what should I do? Buy a chicken sandwich knowing full well that part of my money will go to the persecution and oppression of several very good friends?

Part of your money?

Unless there's something very unusual about your relationship with Chick-Fil-A, buying a sandwich there is an exchange, not a gift. You're not supporting their political views by purchasing their product, any more than they're supporting your political views by selling it to you.

Thinking of a food purchase as some kind of smokescreen for the world's most attenuated political donation seems just as foolish from the anti-Chick-Fil-A side as it would for bigots who might buy extra.

That's right, and it'd be the same if Charles Manson owned Chick-Fil-A (fark I'm tired of typing that with all the hyphens) and wasn't jailed. Just because the owner of a chicken joint is a despicable excuse for a sack of meat is no reason to question giving him money!

That's a really convincing argument, because murder is exactly like political speech!

quantum_jellyroll:Sounds like an echo chamber in here.Imagine someone holding an opinion contrary to what the mob thinks.

This is one of the things that always irk me when people think that all you have to do to be "edgy" is hold an opinion that is "contrary to what the mob thinks". Like being a unique snowflake automatically makes you a rebel.

Sometimes, holding an opinion contrary to what the majority hold simply makes you an idiot. Doing something to BE edgy automatically makes it not edgy. It just makes you a hipster douche. And if you're doing something to BE edgy to make it not edgy so you can be ironic then you're a grand poobah hipster douchebag.

Ghastly:quantum_jellyroll: Sounds like an echo chamber in here.Imagine someone holding an opinion contrary to what the mob thinks.

/begin yammering wall of consciousness effluentThis is one of the things that always irk me when people think that all you have to do to be "edgy" is hold an opinion that is "contrary to what the mob thinks". Like being a unique snowflake automatically makes you a rebel.

Sometimes, holding an opinion contrary to what the majority hold simply makes you an idiot. Doing something to BE edgy automatically makes it not edgy. It just makes you a hipster douche. And if you're doing something to BE edgy to make it not edgy so you can be ironic then you're a grand poobah hipster douchebag.

God damned posers ruin everything.

/end yammering wall of consciousness effluent

I'm making the point that so many posters in this thread are incensed that the owners of CFAare adhering to their sincerely held beliefs. They seem to think it's wrong to not go along withthe rest of the lemmings. What makes the mobs consensus any more valid??.They are not discriminating against anyone.They are not intimidating anyone into complying with their wishes.They are not forcing anyone else to agree with them.They are not depriving anyone of their rights and freedoms.They are exercising their 1st amendment right to follow their consciences as their faith leads them.What makes their beliefs inferior to the beliefs of those that disagree with them?

If someone has a beef against the Cathy family doing with their money what they wish to do,then they should start their own business to compete against CFA and use any profits earned to support thecauses which they prefer. But, that would take more commitment than just biatching and callingsomeone a "hater", so that's probably not an option.

As for the grand poobah hipster douchebag comment...You're too young, too self-important, and obviously too willfully ignorant to think differently than the collective.

Run along now, and plug back into the collective and learn what you're supposed to think next.

James!:I don't drink Coors products because of their donations to the Heritage Foundation (also because it's terrible). I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because of their religious wack jobbery, same with In and Out. I actually don't eat fast food period, but I'll tell people who talk about those places what their stances are.

So.... you dont eat fast food, but you boycott chic fil a and in n out, and you dont drink coors, but you you are boycotting them too?